Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

SenatorLuddite writes "From January 20, 2008 new content laws introduced by the Federal Government will force sites to verify the age of users before accessing content intended for mature audiences (MA15+ and R18+). The laws bring internet classification into line with Film and Book classification laws and completely prohibits X18+ and RC content from the internet. ACMA (The Australian Communications and Media Authority) claims that adults will not be affected by the new laws, yet user-generated and even chatrooms are required to be assessed for classification and powers are granted to ACMA to send 'take down' notices to offending sites."

Time to invest some money into DPI and cache vendor stocks. Pity that most of them are either private or diluted by humongous conglomerates like cisco. It is also DPI and cache, not content control. Most of content control is geared towards the corporate police, not ISPs so it is not what is going to be deployed down under.

My guess is that a lot of small operators won't be able to comply, and that a lot of traffic will move offshore if this is really implemented. This law could take us back to the good old days, when almost Aussie web traffic went across the Pacific.

You get what you want and pay for.Want to be treated like a serf? Consent to be governed by others and be told what to do... consent to have some depraved power hungry, child molesting lunatics legislate morality to you and your children. (Sort of how the "conservatives" permit boy raping priests to tell them how to be good "Christian" men... which, if priests actually lead by example, is obviously "lie your ass off, rape little boys, be a hypocrite about it, don't get caught, and become a diocese before

Yeah, but if I don't register or vote, others will choose for me. And if I register and vote, I would like to be able to select those who will represent me. In my country it's possible. In USA there are only two parties, so it's not possible.

The system has broken down.
We really are down to Kang and Kodos with our current system.
Unless we all step up and have the balls to vote for someone different, this kind of thing will be coming your way soon.
The whole "save the babies" bit gets votes.
Me? I'm voting for Ron Paul.

That's okay. In Australia, we'll fine you if you don't vote. (Hint: in Australia, it's illegal to not vote, everyone has to, whether they want to or not. It changes the political system significantly, and judging by the way you people complain all the time, for the better.)

Hm. Zero Punctuation? [escapistmagazine.com] That's published in the US, but produced in Australia, by a British guy.

Also, as an Australian currently working abroad, stuff like Chaser's war on everything, media watch, and other assorted publications matter to me (although they're all on hiatus since it's christmas time there.)

The bigger problem is that it might start other countries from just throwing their hands up and blocking Australia outright, since there's probably no simple (hell, probably not even a complex) solution to th

Please, if that's the way you feel, feel free to stay right where you are

Huh? If that's the way I feel I should stay out? How does that make sense? Because I'm not happy with the conservative nature of both parties right now?

There's still a *lot* that I like about the Australian political system. It's certainly not the three-ring circus that America has, and while it's clearly unbalanced some of the time, it's usually fairly sane, and gets quite a fair bit right, particularly it's ability to represent small

It's not illegal not to vote if you aren't enrolled, no, but it is illegal not to be enrolled for Commonwealth elections and elections in most states and territories. (I think South Australia is the only exception there.) Break one law, break the other, up to you.

Yes, that's essentially correct, but illegal is a rather strong word. The worst penalty you'll get is a fine, if they even know where you are. Most of the time, if you are not enrolled, then you are also unknown to the Australian Electoral Commission. Even if they do fine you, they'll let you off if you can show reasonably why you're not enrolled.

So yeah, voting is compulsory, but they're not going to bust your balls if you don't.

That's also illegal (you can't get caught, but if you could you could be fined for it). And I doubt the counters bothered to read it.

(Actually, in the 2006 Victorian state election, the government introduced computers to allow blind people to cast secret ballots as a trial; the law passed allowing this required the computers to allow a user to cast an informal vote — which is illegal!)

Yes, the electoral commission takes a dim view of people who encourage other people to donkey vote, technically you are not supposed to tell anyone "how to donkey vote" although poeple do so on TV talk shows every now and then and nobody bats an eyelid.

Attempts to censor the net via the OFLC are not new here in Australia, the one thing these attempts have in common is that they didn't work. Not so long ago an MP created a site offering advice on assisted suicide. The site was banned via the OFLC, the MP

Actually, read the law. It is compulsory to vote. In fact, it's compulsory to make a formal ballot. If you only write "1" on your lower house ballot, or put your name on the ballot, or do anything else that invalidates your vote, you're breaking the law. Just because you don't (or even can't!) get caught doesn't make it legal.

Ummm, it is illegal to donkey vote in certain states (IIRC Victoria abandoned the law in the 90's), however any donkey vote law has always been mute since we are talking about a secret ballot and therefore the offence can never be proven without breaking other laws.

Furthermore spelling out how to donkey vote as you have done in your post is also illegal and can attract jail time. IIRC an activist in the suburbs of Melbourne was taken to court about a decade ago and given a slap on the wrist in an attempt

No.In a multi-party elections, in first round of voting, you vote for whoever you want. That narrows down the field to 2 people. Then you vote for one of the two in second round of voting. This tends to prevent fringe from getting in.

In the US, it is not suppose to be the president you vote for, but for the Electoral Collage. Then these people decide who is the president. Of course, it is kind of completely broken now and direct elections may be better than current implementation. Electoral College actually

Electoral College actually make it possible to win with minority vote anyway.

That's intentional. It's an attempt to balance the power of small and large states. A pure direct vote can suck if you live in a less populated region of a larger entity. You can end up with a situation where a few heavily populated regions have so many votes that they ignore the interests of everyone else. It's a real problem in many states.

Another issue is recounts. What happens if candidate A beats candidate B by a tiny margin of the direct vote? There will always be allegations of fraud in some places. What if candidate B asks for a nation-wide recount? The current system tends to limit the damage to a small number of states where there were allegations of fraud and the race was close enough for it to matter.

In the US maybe. In the UK you can have (well there is no actual limit) but you can often see six or so candidates for a constituency. Three from the main parties and a few fringe ones, and if the fringe has enough local interest they can and do get in. All you need do is pony up a £500 deposit, not be mad or a bankrupt and you can stand.
While it could be argued we still have two party politics, the third party has enough clout and interest that the two main parties have to take notice of them and n

As long as what ever form of PR selected takes into account people not voting. I don't think it's right that if only 30% of people vote 100% of the seats available still get allocated as that's neither proportional nor representative. If only 30% of the people vote then only 30% of the available seats should be filled - this would go a long way towards stopping fringe parties getting undue influence.

In most multi-party parliamentary systems, the prime minister has much less power than the president in a system like in the US. (no veto!) On top of that, the prime minister can only pick from elected officials to create his cabinet, not his Yale friends and business buddies, making them far more accountable.

Also, that one party with 33% doesn't hold all the power, the entire parliament holds the power. Yes, the party that creates the cabinet has more opportunity to introduce bills, but it takes a majority vote of parliament to pass them.

Lastly, Australia uses "Preference Voting". To translate that to real US terms: you can safely vote for Nader without by doing do increasing the Repugnicans' chances to win the election.

On the contrary, the Prime Minister in a Westminster style system has much more power than the President of the USA, because the PM fully controls the legislative agenda.

In the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, laws that spend public money or raise taxes must be accompanied by a "Royal Recommendation". Since the Monarch of each country with respect to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative has been an automaton since at least 1936 (and for hundreds of years with respect to the UK and its legal predecessors), acting only on the advice of the Prime Minister, this means that the PM has a veto on whether Parliament can even consider most important bills. Ireland and India have similar rules, but have (appointed) Presidents instead of a (heridtary) Queen and (appointed) Governor-General.

This is Section 56 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (current version): "A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated." The Senate and House of Representatives both have rules and standing orders forbidding the debate of votes, resolutions or proposed laws that may not be passed, and the President or Speaker enforces these assiduously.

Moreover, in all of these countries except the UK, either the Royal Assent can be deferred, or the Proclamation can be deferred, in the event Parliament passes a Bill that the Prime Minister does not want. In the UK, the Royal Assent has been automatic and has not involved the Monarch or the Prime Minister since the early Victorian era; Proclamation is not a feature of the UK system -- an Act of Parliament that receives Royal Assent becomes law immediately (or at a future date fixed in the Act itself). It is pretty clear that if it became necessary, the Prime Minister could constitutionally insist that "the Queen withhold Royal Assent in order to consider the Bill" ("la Reyne s'avisera", is the Norman French formalization), which in practice would mean sending a letter to the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament.

This is described in Sections 58 (Royal Aseent) and 60 (Proclamation) of the Australian Constitution.

Finally Section 59 of the Australian Constitution uniquely retains the power of Disallowance (it was abolished with respect to Canada and New Zealand, and never existed in the United Kingdom). (It reads: "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.")

In effect, these tools represent a Prime Ministerial veto over legislation, available even if the majority of Parliament supports a bill.

Section 59 might actually be used by the new government. It is normally considered a political mistake to do so, but since the campaign dealt with legislation forced through at the end of the Howard premiership, it is plausible that the new Prime Minister can claim an electoral mandate to exercise the power.

In short, the veto powers of a Westminster-style Prime Minister far exceed those of the President, who must veto or not within a short period of time, and whose veto can be overturned by Parliament.

In the Westminster system, the only remedy for Parliament is to refuse to pass the bills the PM actually wants, or to withhold confidence in the government (by declaration of no confidence, or the defeat of a supply bill), which likely would trigger an election. However in that case it is the PM who decides whether to name a replacement, try to secure confidence with a new set of ministers, or set an election date. The Monarch or Governor is expected to act like an automaton in this

Not only that, but in some system (like Australia and the UK), members of parliament are chosen by constituency. So not only would they have to replace the MP in question, they would have to do it with someone who would be a vote winner for the party in that constituency to avoid losing the seat altogether in the next election.

Yeah, but someone has to build the roads, the schools and the hospitals. How are you going to pay for them, if not through taxes? How are you going to adminster them, if not via a government? I think most people don't give a shit about "moral" issues, they just want their infrastructure. That's why government moral crusades are rarely effective. But fuck with the infrastructure, and people will be up in arms.

In the worst case scenario you can always vote from the rooftops. Oh wait, even airsoft is illegal in Australia. You and Britain can enjoy your police states, while in America corrupt politicians have nightmares of crazy libertarians voting with a.30-06.

But that would be too sensible, just like the notion of.xxx to enable easy filtering.

Hold it right there. A.kids namespace and associated content makes sense; but a.xxx space does not, and would not work. They are fundamentally different concepts.

A.kids TLD (or better yet,.kids.us or.kids.au or whatever) is a WHITELIST. You only allow content into it that's been reviewed, and is guaranteed-clean. It's trivial to restrict browsers to it. You can set up whatever kind of review committee you want to keep tabs on it. It's strictly opt-in by design.

However,.xxx or.porn or.adult are exactly the opposite. They are BLACKLISTS and can only function when you effectively censor the rest of the Internet, in order to force adult content into the "adult" TLDs. This is hugely impractical and spectacularly dangerous from a freedom-of-speech perspective. Essentially what this tries to do is turn the entire Internet EXCEPT one corner of it into a "kids"-zone, and that's just not going to happen. It's impossible to police effectively without a national firewall (because unlike a TLD, which you could put under your country's namespace and easily apply national laws to, you'd be trying to censor all of the 'net), and such a scheme would lead to fragmentation of the network in short order.

Do not confuse.kids, which is a good idea, with.xxx, which is dangerous and stupid.

Why would anyone want the latter, particularly if it means they're going to be automatically censored in large parts of the country/world? I suspect there are lots of porn consumers who live blatantly hypocritical lives ("uh, sure, honey... you can block.xxx, I certainly don't care about it..."). At any rate, it doesn't make much sense to restrict one's market. And with the price of domain names, the logical solution for any adult site would be to buy both: get yourname.xxx and yourname.com. This is the main driver behind the.xxx TLD in the first place -- it's a cash cow for the registrars.

I think in time any pron sites left in.com will feel pressure to move to "where they should be".

Pressure from who? And why would they care? Certainly not social pressure. There are porn sites around for lots of, shall we say... fringe activities; things that are certainly not acceptable in mainstream society. No amount of tut-tutting is going to push them into the.xxx ghetto when there's a clear ongoing economic incentive to remain in both. And as for government/legal pressure, that only works within the borders of a single nation; there's nothing stopping me from setting up a.com porn site in some neutral territory and thus reaching all those consumers stuck behind.xxx-blocks for whatever reason. The only way you could enforce this is with a national firewall and universal content screening.

And this whole scheme doesn't do anything about adult content that appears on sites other than ones 100% dedicated to porn. You're always going to have imageboards and interactive/user-created content sites that are going to tend towards 'adult,' because that's what people are interested in. You're not going to change that through any amount of legislation.

The result is that no matter how much you try, there is always going to be adult content available in the 'general' Internet. And that means it'll never be "porn free," ever, undermining the whole point of the endeavor. You can't make the Internet, in general, "safe for kids," because the Internet is mostly populated by adults, and much of what adults want to talk about is, well, adult. So not only is it a recipe for censorship and unnecessarily burdensome, it's futile in terms of actually achieving its stated purpose.

There's already a kids domain. It was a huge flop.

Yep, very true. The take-away point here? Nobody really gives that much of a shit about protecting kids, or creating a 'safe zone' for them. The.xxx proposals are about two things: they're an attempt by the registrars to make a few bucks, and they're a way for some social authoritarians to try and regulate the lives of others' and censor the public sphere by pushing content they find disagreeable into a walled ghetto.

You would have the.kids domain restricted by a peer review committee and that's just dandy. But that same philosophical application somehow does not work for.xxx?

The point you're missing is that you couldn't get a kids domain unless a) you asked for it and b) passed the review. If you want to register a.com with kids content only, there'd be nothing stopping you; it would be strictly opt-in with review. Most of the suggested implementations of.xxx imply that adult content would be forced onto.xxx

This is a slippery distinction made between the two domains in the context of "free speech". You would have the.kids domain restricted by a peer review committee and that's just dandy. But that same philosophical application somehow does not work for.xxx?

Well, there's a valid argument as to whether we should even bother to 'protect' children from pornography, rather than trying to educate them as to the differences between healthy and unhealthy sexuality, reality vs fantasy, etc. I think that's a valid discussion to have, and in an ideal world, I'd be all for education rather than enforced "innocence", but I realize that's a non-starter in most parts of the world today.

So, if we take on premise that children need to be 'protected' from some content, I th

I would probably actually prefer my kids running rampant on an unprotected internet than living in Disney/Fisher-Price world. Kids are stupid enough as it is today. They need real experience, and while the Internet barely qualifies as "real," it's more real than a fake Disney Internet. As fucked up as I am from all the porn I've seen, I think I'm pretty OK. Especially when I compare myself to kids who grew up sheltered. And I'm probably more fucked up from all the things real live humans did to me. So let's just leave the Internet alone, no?

That being said, as long as filtering along a top-level domain were voluntary to the parents, then I'm fine with it.

OT:I finally watched Wizard People, Dear Readers, and it is the best thing in the world. If you die before you watch it, you lose.

A lot of us learned to experiment and use our minds as kids on fisher-price stuff.However that being said censoring adults is no substitute for supervising children.Just in case you did want a fisher-price internet for your 3 year old slashdotter-in-training.http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5788078 [walmart.com] Fisher-Price Easy-Link Internet Launch Pad, Elmo and Dragon Tales

Well, I'm more opposed to Disney. I just mean that even a Fisher-Price Internet is a sad excuse for an open communication medium. There are plenty of games that use internet access on a closed network as a way to move the game forward. That would be an excellent way to introduce young children to the Internet. In fact, having a game from within which you could only access.kid domains would be pretty nifty.My other problem with this as a "solution" is that parents are increasingly content to use electro

The problem being, of course, that the "kindernet" will be of zero interest to exactly the kids this legislation wants to "protect".

Very small kids aren't interested in sex. It means nothing to them. At the age where kids start to get interested in sex, there's maybe one thing that rivals that desire: Doing whatever the adults are doing. Those 12 and 14 year olds won't stay in their "kindernet". They will get on the (adult) Internet, if only because that's what the adults are doing.

I mean, really, can you imagine a better invitation to come in and look around than a "you must be 18 years old to view this page. click below to indicate that you are that old, kids must go elsewhere" boilerplate? No matter if it takes the form of the current porn website front pages or some legislation. Kids will find a way past.

Yes but if you control the kindernet, you could introduce concepts such as sex in a tasteful, sensible & perhaps even educational fashion. After all, they wont know any different.

What a strange world you must come from. Here on Earth, at least in the United States of America, we prefer to teach our children about sexuality and reproduction by keeping them in the dark as long as possible, then lying through our teeth to them, and then letting them learn about it via the always-accurate medium of hardcore pornography. (Although the Catholic Church does offer some 'hands-on' advanced placement courses...they're quite the forward-thinking bunch there.)

But that's not the best part; just wait until you hear about our drug policy!

[W]e prefer to teach our children about sexuality and reproduction by keeping them in the dark as long as possible, then lying through our teeth to them, and then letting them learn about it via the always-accurate medium of hardcore pornography.

You mean, you don't whack-a-mole the face after you're finished? *shocked*

Seriously though, that's due to our religious association. Major religious institutions figured out long ago that the control of sex was a wonderful way to keep everyone feeling guilty, hence

I hate seeing any kind of law that burdens internet services with having to "verify" anything. Instead, what I want to see are laws that throw irresponsible parents and conservative holier-than-thou types in prison for dragging the rest of society down.

Your 13-year-old daughter was raped when she met up in real life with a 40 year old man from MySpace? Then you should be thrown in prison for not making yourself aware of what your daughter was doing online and for failing to teach your daughter to be smarter than that.

Your 14 year old son was looking at porn? So what? Neither YOU nor anyone you knew ever looked at porn when YOU were 14? And every man who snuck looks at boobies and crotches when he was a teen has grown up to be some kind of dysfunctional degenerate psychopath? Hardly. Get off your conservative high horse.

My favorite was a website requesting CC# for verification purposes. Right next to the entry field was a link to a CC# generator website. To me that was the ultimate example of the futility of the proposed US legislation. Without requiring every website that hosts adult content have a CC processing account, there is no way to even val

You don't have to be Freud to see the ways in which pent up guilt and self revulsion pours out of the ruling classes. It's an expression of their own inadequacy to defeat their inner greed, blood lust and worship of war and horror.... Ask any psychologist about the link between Nazism and sexuality if you want to understand the pathology of the authoratarian mind.

Wilhelm Reich analyzed the relationship between authority and sexual repression.

The main elements of the new content regulatory framework in Schedule 7 to the BSA are:a prohibition on X18+ and RC content;

and also

"In developing these new content rules, ACMA was guided by its disposition to allow adults to continue to read, hear and see what they want, while protecting children from exposure to inappropriate content, regardless of the delivery mechanism," Mr Chapman said in a statement.

Our federal government actually.:) The only place that can sell X rated material is the Australian Capitol Territory. (And if you go one suburb over, you can get fire-works too.) Actually, that may have changed, it's not like I've been monitoring the situation.

Yes, American friends, it's like Washington, D.C. being the porn capitol of America. Actually, that might be a good thing, some of your politicians look like they need some relief.

Neither link provides any detail about how they're going to make such rules stick. What will be the fine for a blogger in Brisbane that talks about goat sodomy?

Also, how would such a crime be prosecuted? Most police work in Australia is state-based and not federal. I'm assuming there is an equivalent to the FBI which will handle detection, evidence collection and prosecution.

Are they going to use packet filtering to detect what people download or will they simply be picking on ISPs hosting content for not hassling their web serving customers?

Honestly, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just looking at this as a scare tactic without teeth, since the notice from Canberra makes no mention of tactics. Please provide links if you find them.

But it still begs the question, how does the government expect to deal with internet content that comes in from foreign soil? Beyond that, are they planning to have some kind of task force independently hunting down adult material, or are they expecting concerned consumers to file complaints? Neither the article nor the ACMA website seems to address just how any of this is going to be dealt with.

Just wait until they try to shut down 4chan. The Internet Hate Machine will sort things out.

In the UK, BT's internet service blocks/b/. It's on some blacklist because, well, you know that bear mascot of theirs? Yeah. That stuff. To their credit they left the rest of 4chan alone, which is impressive given that if they blocked/b/ they must at least have looked at what goes on in/d/.

Just wait until they try to shut down 4chan. The Internet Hate Machine will sort things out.

In the UK, BT's internet service blocks/b/. It's on some blacklist because, well, you know that bear mascot of theirs? Yeah. That stuff. To their credit they left the rest of 4chan alone, which is impressive given that if they blocked/b/ they must at least have looked at what goes on in/d/.

To be fair, 4chan doesn't permit child pornography, and cooperates fully with the FBI whenever it shows up, turning over IP addresses and chat logs. Also,/d/ is easily the politest, sanest, most on-topic board on 4chan.

Personal emails and other private communications would be excluded from the new laws and so would news or current affairs services.

So does this mean if someone setup a web site called "SlashSlash - News for pervs", with articles and pictures about all the latest news and events in the world of 'X18-plus content'... then it would be exempt from regulation ?

Because, you know, in a world of war, terrorism, economic depression and a climate change that just might wipe us out as a species, protecting the children from something their hormones will drive them to in five or ten years (if that) with a force that nukes pale against is certainly the most important thing to do.

I say fuck the children - not literally, except if they want to fuck each other, they've got my blessings as long as they know some basic health principles (for both physical and mental health). So how about we stop worrying about the children and start worrying about the real issues?

Because, when you think about it, things are very simple. Either, growing up the way past generations did wasn't totally fucked up, and the kids will be just fine, or if growing up the way past generations did was totally fucked up, and is something we must protect the kids from at all costs, then those who grew up in that fucked up way are the last ones you should entrust those decisions to.

if growing up the way past generations did was totally fucked up, and is something we must protect the kids from at all costs, then those who grew up in that fucked up way are the last ones you should entrust those decisions to.

I think the ones trying to do this grew up without transistors. This intertubes thingamajigger scares them, and they want it off their e-lawn.

Because, when you think about it, things are very simple. Either, growing up the way past generations did wasn't totally fucked up, and the kids will be just fine, or if growing up the way past generations did was totally fucked up, and is something we must protect the kids from at all costs, then those who grew up in that fucked up way are the last ones you should entrust those decisions to.

No, it is not simple at all. Your great-grandparents lived in a world of increased daily crime and violence, oppression of women and infant death. It was not common for schools to teach sex education, but marriage around the age of 13 was. Society generally cooperated to keep sexually explicit imagery away from children. Abortion was largely illegal and birth control was hard to acquire.

In the interim what has happened is that people have fallen away from the traditional centers of morality such as the Chu

they've got my blessings as long as they know some basic health principles (for both physical and mental health).

Yeah, well, there's the rub, you see. (So to speak) They don't, no matter how much sex ed you give them, and then I, as a taxpayer, get to pay for all those little mistakes. Fuck that. *Mandatory* abortions, I say.

This is an update to the existing law regarding access to phone chat services. Realising that the wording of the law only covered traditional telephony, the ACMA seems to have simply stuck "and teh internets" into the wording wherever they deemed it appropriate, rendering a total hash of the regulations. Defining "content" when you're talking about fixed-line phones is easy. When it comes to the internet, it's effectively impossible.

In the US, this would get stomped by the Supreme Court as unconstitutionally broad in five minutes flat. Here in Australia that may take longer, but I expect it to be largely ignored in the meantime.

The only way this could be instituted is that you are assumed to be a child. Upon going to a particular site that may or may not have 'adult' content, the user will have to attempt to prove he is not a child. Of course, such 'proof' is impossible. You never really know who is behind the keyboard. That impossibility is primarily why the Communications Decency Act [wikipedia.org] of 1996 got shot down. It puts the onus on the adult to prove his legality.

People keep tagging these stories "kingcanute". Canute was trying to prove to his courtiers by demonstration that he could not hold back the tide. Somehow I doubt these would-be censors are trying to demonstrate its ineffectiveness.

Who cares about sex and porn? That stuff is so over-rated, it's pathetic.

Now, murder (and violence in general), showing people's heads get splattered against a wall, watching people get thrown through a window and land twenty stories below in a heap of gore, watching people get skinned alive, now/that/ stuff is the good stuff!

All this talk about penises and vaginae and sex is just so tiring.I think I'll go watch a few murder movies to get my mind off it.

Of course I expect to be told I'm wrong, I'm just curious to hear why.

You answered your own question several sentences earlier:

The article was scanty on how the age verification would be done...

Setting aside the issue of whether it's the government's legitimate purpose and responsibility to limit access to these sorts of materials in the first place (and I don't think that it is -- that's definitely the parents' job, and I don't think that the government should be falling over itself to "help" parents, but that sort of stupidity is endemic to all democracies), it's idiotic to try and implement age limits when there's no effective way to de

Of course I expect to be told I'm wrong, I'm just curious to hear why.

It's because accurate age verification is nearly impossible to implement on the internet without dramatically changing the way the internet, as we know it, works today. Necessitating identification of casual internet users would eliminate many of the user-generated sites and content on the internet, because they would be unable to comply with stringent age-verification rules. What has allowed the internet to blossom is the (perceived

I suppose that's the sort of comment I would expect from somebody that is not paying attention from the country that sent us both Oral Roberts to say the entire population of the country was cursed to go to hell and also sent us the weird Pentacostals that are demanding these restrictions on the net in the first place. The US based churches are pushing this and not the average Australian taxpayer. Personally I don't think it will amount to much because they do not have much political power here at the mom

Yeah, when Whitlam becomes PM, he's going to stop you foreigners making convict jokes. As the AC said, most of us are descended from free settlers. IIRC, half of the population is from settlers that got here post WWI, or is it WWII?

It would very likely cover content outside of Australia. This ties directly into Labour policy [alp.org.au] that will make ISPs provide a 'clean feed' that is opt-out rather than opt-in. ISPs will be required to blacklist and filter out sites containing material that is X18+ or Refused Classification, no matter where it is hosted. Our classification system is rather onerous, which means that a lot of stuff will be blocked that's seen as perfectly acceptable in, say, the US or UK.